User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2016-05-27 at 10:09 PM UTC in Question for the EurofagsI don't care what he does.
-
2016-05-27 at 9:58 PM UTC in Question for the EurofagsThe cuck-like indifference you display towards the Islamic Invasion of your motherland is amusing to me.
-
2016-05-26 at 7:46 PM UTC in women in the work place, anyone ever dealt with this?
^my dad is a fucking asshole, He told me today "well doug, you dug your own hole"
He's not wrong, it isn't like someone else fucked your life up. You made all the decisions and mistakes that led up to this.
You are the only one responsible for how your life is. -
2016-05-26 at 7:37 PM UTC in question for racistsWould you guys say Bill Krozby qualifies as a nigger?
-
2016-05-26 at 6:26 PM UTC in Tips for not hating life: Your Ideas Edition
True, emotionally retarded. That's how I classify myself.
That cannot be healthy. -
2016-05-26 at 4:29 PM UTC in Tips for not hating life: Your Ideas EditionAsk yourself why you hate yourself and how hating yourself benefits you in any way.
-
2016-05-26 at 4:26 PM UTC in Tips for not hating life: Your Ideas EditionHating yourself appears to be a retarded behavior.
-
2016-05-19 at 9 PM UTC in Sploo fucks ugly girls throat while high on bundy
-
2016-05-16 at 11:02 AM UTC in Got attacked at workHe was probably an illuminati agent sent to destroy your dreams because your YouTube links are spreading too much truth around.
-
2016-05-16 at 10:49 AM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongAn objective morality doesn't make any sense, at least to me Lanny. Maybe I'm just too dumb to wrap my head around the concept, but honestly in my mind it is nonsense. Maybe it makes sense to you. Either way it probably isn't very important because we're still here living this life and I don't think a subjective or objective morality actually changes anything about that.
-
2016-05-15 at 4:11 PM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongIf morality were an absolute "fundamental law", something could be immoral even if every human disagreed. If, instead, human feelings and desires are what ultimately count, then that is a subjective morality.
Therefore a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one. That’s because by definition it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?
Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality? I suspect that they’re actually trying to attain objective backing for what is merely their own subjective opinion of what is moral.(plague is bad, yet plague has no consciousness or moral agency)
Without someone to consider plague to be bad, plague is not bad, it is only plague.Similarly mass extinction of complex life would result in a world where nothing is around to subjectively experience the wrongness of it and yet we can consider such a world and most of us would deem such genocide to be wrong.
Correct,, it is an opinion, a perspective, a consideration, something we deem. If we were not around to deem the world to be right or wrong the world would not be right or wrong, it would only be the world.Something in the nature of certain types of consciousness brings about morality inevitably
Our moral sense is one of a number of systems developed by evolution to do a job: the immune systems counters infection, the visual system gives us information about the world, and our moral feelings are there as a social glue to enable us to cooperate with other humans.
Evolution doesn’t operate according to what "is moral", it operates according to what helps someone to have more descendants. Even if there were an "absolute" morality, there is no reason to suppose that it would have any connection to our own human sense of morality. Anyone arguing for objective morality by starting with human morality and intuition is thus basing their case on a non sequitur.So we can look at abstract objects, regardless of what ontological status you grant them, as a similar example of something which is objective, or minimally non-subjective, and yet which owe their status entirely to subjective perception in a similar way to how we might propose a constructivist model of ethics.
I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. How can an abstract object be objective? What does this have to do with morality?
What would "objective morality" even mean? Yes, humans have an intuition about it, but that intuition was programmed for purely subjective and pragmatic reasons, and thus is a hopeless base for establishing absolute morality.
When asked, the advocate of absolute morality explains that it is concerned with what one "should do", regardless of human opinion or desire. When asked what "should do" means they’ll replace it with a near synonym, explaining that it is what one "ought to do". But if you press further they’ll simply retreat into circularity, explaining that what you "ought" to do is what you "should" do, and thus beg the whole question. They can’t do any better than that, though they’ll likely appeal to human intuition, which won’t do for the reasons above.
There is one clear answer here. The "oughts" and "shoulds" are rooted in human opinion, they are what people would like to happen. Thus morality is of the form "George is of the opinion that you should …" or "human consensus is that you should …" or "people have an emotional revulsion to …". But, without the subject doing the feeling and opining, morality would not make sense. Morality is all about what other humans think about someone’s actions. That is why evolution programmed moral senses into us. Remove that subjective human opinion and the result is literally nonsensical. -
2016-05-15 at 1:31 AM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongI went to Debate.org and searched for "morality is subjective" and just picked out one persons opinion in a poll.
In my own opinion what is right and what is wrong is a matter of perspective or opinion. I don't see how anything could be right or wrong without someone there to subjectively considering the thing to be right or wrong. -
2016-05-14 at 10:38 PM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongI actually didn't write any of that LanMan.
-
2016-05-14 at 4:18 PM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongMorality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality." Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'. What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is beforeâ€) and a posteriori (“from what is afterâ€) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects. Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK.
-
2016-05-14 at 4:19 AM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrong
No, because I've made no claims contrary to those you've made. It is only you who have stated claims, and they are so far unsupported, and worse, undefined.
If you're not going to claim anything contrary to what I stated then I'm not going to build any supporting arguments for my statement because I couldn't care less. -
2016-05-14 at 2:04 AM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongBefore I do that, will you give us some examples of what you believe is inherently or objectively right or wrong?
-
2016-05-13 at 11:43 PM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongI can try. Morality is all in your head. Therefore it isn't objective. Does that work?
-
2016-05-13 at 9:08 PM UTC in Making the case for IslamIt certainly wouldn't happen in a westernized society.
-
2016-05-13 at 9:04 PM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongRight and wrong are subjective, nothing is inherently right or wrong, therefore you are a faggot.
-
2016-05-13 at 9:02 PM UTC in Another Drunk Phone Meeting, woooooRyan Rogers.
